"Cellphone calls IMPOSSIBLE"; by Professor A.K Dewdney

[Not gullible]

Read it all here:

http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ghost_riders_1-4_2.html

[workforpower]

1. What a crock!

This site is a stupid magnet. I hope you laughed as much as I did.

[izzie]

2. Does he think no calls got out? I think some could.

I do not know about the rest. It is interesting how fast they got the TV pictures of Atta. I wonder if they did check all those TV in every bank around Portland Maine. Some times I think it all clicked together once the plane hit the WTC and then these people we pay millions to got to work. Better late then never, I guess. I think on the calls people wish to have heard even if they did not, but I am willing to bet some did get calls.

[workforpower]

3. Check out the whole site.

All the planes landed at a secret airport. All the passengers were loaded on FT 93 and then.... You get the picture?

[RC]

4. The site may or may not be BS

but cell phones in passinger planes are not known to work very well in flight.

[DougFir]

5. another slick psyop to alienate the public from looking at 9/11

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

"cellphones can't be used in airplanes"


The articles on the web that discuss cellphones in planes vary in their opinions about the feasibility of this. An experiment to replicate these claims would need to know the exact altitudes and phone companies and be in the same locations -- which is probably impossible to do.


The implication is that the calls that WERE made were (1) not made from an Airphone (which clearly DO work), and (2) were military psyop campaigns to spread the myth of the cellphone calls about the hijackers.


While it is certainly true that fake audio and video is much easier to make these days, this is probably the meme most calculated to alienate "911 researchers" from the family members. It is very unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation this would require makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone.


 
Dewdney's "physics911" site is a fan of the webfairy/pod campaign (which has been conclusively proven to be bogus disinformation). So he's not the most credible source.


www.physics911.org
contains the science fiction story "Operation Pearl," which theorizes that the passengers on the four planes were all escorted onto Flight 93, perhaps in Harrisburg, PA, and then Flight 93 then was shot down while the other three planes were dumped into the Atlantic. How would the perpetrators have been able to keep all of the passengers from making a cell phone call while being transferred to the other plane? The odds of this being true are about the same as winning the lottery, since this would have made it much less likely to keep the operation secret and compartmentalized to the minimum number of people possible. Physics911 states that they prefer to invent hypotheses and then see if there's evidence that fits their story (although there isn't actually any evidence to support "Operation Pearl"). However, it is more productive with investigating 9/11 to stick to the best evidence (which is triple checked) and then see what scenario could possibly fit the provable evidence.


Perhaps this story could be a mix of real and bogus to discredit looking at the real. If plane substitution really was performed (which is probably unprovable without direct access to the FAA and military radar tapes), then floating this story with the obvious falsehood that the passengers were all put onto a single plane makes further consideration of this theory seem ridiculous.


 


Plane Substitution


The plane substitution thesis is the core of the "physics 911" hypothesis, and it is discussed in two articles by an internet persona called "Woody Box"



Flight 11 - The Twin Flight
http://home.mayn.de/grolo/gfp_fl11.pdf


The Cleveland Airport Mystery
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323



These are interesting articles, but there's not any actual evidence. There needs to be more than mere assertion (especially given that the strongest promoter of these "woodybox" stories thinks that the pod story is scientific research) before adopting these claims as proven.


 


In defense of plane substitution as a possibility, here are two pieces of evidence to consider.


The military wargames on 9/11 could have easily served as the cover for this substitution:



“I have an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner”.
Mike Ruppert – June 5, 2004, editor of FTW www.fromthewilderness.com



In addition, "Plane substitution" WAS apparently used in the KAL 007 scandal in 1983.


The KAL 007 scandal involved a 747 merging very close to an NSA spy plane on the USSR border (which formed a single radar blip), and then the 747 headed into Soviet air space. The Russians thought it was the spy plane that entered, but it was merely the passenger plane. It probably wasn't carrying surveillance equipment, but it triggered the Russian air defense system to activate its standard operating procedures, radars, communication systems, etc. -- which were vacuumed up by numerous external platforms, including the Space Shuttle orbiting overhead. See "Shootdown: Flight 007 and the American Connection" by R.W. Johnson and "KAL 007: The Coverup, why the true story has never been told" by David Pearson.)


 





One of the most important characteristics of a covert operation, in addition to the fact that it must be secret, is that it be very small. There is no such thing as a successful big clandestine operation. The bigger the operation, the less chance there is that it can be secret.
- Col. Fletcher Prouty, "The Secret Team"
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/STchp4.html

[demodewd]

6. re: pod story

What research do you have access to that credibly refutes the "pod story"?
Your homesite states that "The "pod" is just a picture of the oval structure connecting
the wing to the fuselage of changing the shading and contrast of a picture of the underside of the plane". Unfortunately the location of the meeting of the wing/fuselage does not correspond to the alleged pod. The alleged pod is too short of the wing's fore and advances beyond the wing's aft. This clearly can be seen and is not "shadow".

Notice

[MrSammo1]

41. Did you see this?

This may shed some light on the photos.

http://www.policestate21.com/nowindows_video.wvx

You've got to love FOXNEWS! ;o)

[DulceDecorum]

7. Yo, DougFir

you joined the Democratic Underground on Aug 10th 2004.
So far you have 12 posts.
Are ANY of your posts about anything
other than the promotion of oilempire.us
which is a known disinfo site?

Just wondering about your repertoire....

[greenman2]

8. cell phones

I am a cell phone design engineerand one of the first members of the physics site.
(Brad here, for those that know me)

there was another experiment done, saying that cells dont work at hight altitudes....
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

not to mention several people have tried, since 911 just to find out if it works, it never does over 3-4000ft, at least not for more than a few seconds. at 10,000ft and 300mph+ forget it.

from the maps wer were shown flight 93 was at 35000ft+ going over 350mph.
forget it. even if 20 people tried to call and 2-3 got through, the call would only last a couple of seconds.
full explanation on the techincal details on the SPINE disussions below.

BUT, that doesnt mean that none of them happened.
they could have been made from a flight at 2-3000ft ?
just not by the plane that was shown on the maps we were given.
There are tons of discrepancies about the flight paths we were shown, they are not at all what really happened. these oddities in the maps just put a nail in the coffin on plane swapping-remote control.

in the 911 commission report, they say that flight 175 changed its txcode twice.
now WHY the heck would a hijacker do that?
it didnt, there was another plane in the area and when radar was close enough, it confused the controller.
possibally a war games plane?

think about it....

flight 11/77 not scheduled
flight 11 taking off from 2 gates
maps are all wrong.
one controller was implicated in another contraversial crash
no hijackers on the passenger lists
eastmans boeing flyover
93 with no debris
77 with no debris
oddities in the Ong call
transponders going on/off
77 totally lost for several mins
175 "pod" or whatever
tail number oddities
some tail # still registered, some not
war games planes at the same time.....

i am sure theres more, but it all points to planes being swapped.

Brad



experiments, and techinical info
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
(see the SPINE discussion for the tech info)

cell calls....
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=51

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=62374;title=APFN;pagemark=80

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=62378;title=APFN;pagemark=60

flight explorer maps...
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=52

flight explorer map anomolies....
http://airgames.bravehost.com/

[Minstrel Boy]

9. oilempire.us a "known disinfo site"?

First I've heard of this. Please tell me how so. As far as I know it doesn't link to bullshit sites like "letsroll911," and its front page carries an endorsement from Jamey Hecht, whom I respect.

[demodewd]

13. re:letsroll911

Why is letsroll911.org a "bullshit site"?

[Minstrel Boy]

14. see, for instance, this:

The domain name can be traced to FEMA.

This information has been removed most places it was posted, including on DU, for privacy considerations. It's still up here:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=50814

But long before I saw this, letsroll failed my smell test. The pod/missile hypothesis stank of intentional disinformation.

I think we need to exercise rigorous intuition in these matters, so 9/11 skeptics are not not led away from the genuine hunt and wholly discredited by agents of misdirection.

[demodewd]

15. how?

Intentional disinfo...the pod? How?

[DulceDecorum]

16. LIES and DISINFORMATION

I urge you to go to that site
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=50814
and check the "proof" out for yourself.

The disinfo agent ran a WHOIS search on letsroll911.org
A phone number came up.
The phone number checked out in the name of one Donald Schultz.
The disinfo agent then ran the name DONALD SCHULTZ through a search engine.
I URGE you to do this for yourself.
The disinfo agent then picked out a person who lives in that general area and has the name Donald Schultz.
This particular Donald Schultz happens to work for
the Village of Bensenville Citizen Corps Council.
From this raw data,
the disinfo agent concluded that letsroll911.org has
"direct connections with FEMA, and "information dissemination" as part of its mission."

This connection is not as strong
as the one between one Donald Duck and his alter ego Donald Trump.
And I bet the Dickens that you were unaware that The Donald first obtained his financial backing from his Uncle Scrooge McDuck who owns so much stock in McDonalds that he was able to force them to concentrate on beef, not poultry.

This poorly researched crap
is being sent to every forum
in the hopes of discrediting letsroll911.org.
WHY?

[DulceDecorum]

17. Check out their "research"

Apparently,
Willam Lewis, the producer of In Plane Sight,
wrote to Rabbi Mark Rabinowitz who denied having written a review of the video.
Rabbi Rabinowitz is the one who was issued the apology.
oilempire.us spun this HARD.

Bogus film director admits he's not an investigator
Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:51:08 -0400
Subject: Rabinowitz
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:48:39 -0500

Dear Jamie,
It is my estimation that you have been in contact with
Mark Rabinowitz, not to be mistaken for Mark Robinowitz.
I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director,
not a private investigator. Certain issues have come to
my attention which need immediate clarification.
The Mark Rabinowitz who I contacted writes reviews under
the title "The Rabbi Report."
I am afraid that I made a terrible mistake in assuming
that this was "Mark Robinowitz" as I hastily compiled a
rebuttal of the extremely chastising review which now
appears in many newsgroups. Obviously this was a mis-
take on my part.
Please accept my sincere apologies. Apparently Mark
Robinowitz of www.oilempire.us did write the review
which you questioned me about today.
I hope this incident will be cleared up and that there
will be no harsh feelings between us.
(please keep this email private)
Best Regards,
William Lewis

oilempire.us even posted the rebutal on their website which is a good thing because everyone has wiped it from their sites along with every mention of Mark Rabinowitz of oilempire.us.
http://www.policestate21.com/robinowitz

Dis-Information Campaign Begins
Weeks Before 911 Video Is Released
911 In Plane Site Review Purportedly Written by Mark Rabinowitz
Revealed As Fraudulent, According to Rabinowitz

Almost three weeks ago, an article of voluminous proportions began to circulate on the Internet. Is was a scathing review of "911 In Plane Site" ostensibly written by Mark Rabinowitz and posted on numerous web sites three weeks before any review copies had even been mailed to press agents or media reviewers.
The review raised serious questions as to the integrity of the documentary and immediately began to disassemble two years of research into what really happened on September 11, 2001. The reviewer made unsupported accusations that the video footage was of poor quality and had somehow been manipulated using Photoshop. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The entire mission of the production was to take footage directly from CNN, FOX, ABC and all of the other independent networks and present them in their original form in order to show incipient duplicity on the part of the very networks entrusted with safeguarding the American people through the transmission of fundamental truth.
Immediately, we began to scratch our heads in wonderment. How could someone have written a review of a film which they had never seen? Furthermore... Why would they do it? I suspect that you already know the answer to these questions, but please read further.
Scroll way down http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

However,
Mark Rabinowitz of oilempire.us DID write a review of In Plane Sight and Mark Rabinowitz of oilempire.us ADMITS to having done so.
This Mark Rabinowitz of oilempire.us
then turns around and demonstrates his own investigative prowess by smearing TWO people with the same name, NEITHER of whom actually works for letsroll911.org.

oilempire.us tries to obtain legitimacy by linking to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13190
which link has now been removed,
and then back linking to other sites to make it appear as if we, of the Democratic Underground, came up with this crap.

These are just a few of the reasons why I say that
oilempire.us is a known disinfo site
and I am happy to say that
if this post follows oilempire.us into oblivion,
I will count that purely as gain.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

10. That final quote of yours is nonsense

<<<One of the most important characteristics of a covert operation, in addition to the fact that it must be secret, is that it be very small. There is no such thing as a successful big clandestine operation. The bigger the operation, the less chance there is that it can be secret.
- Col. Fletcher Prouty, "The Secret Team">>>>

You need to read about the british-american team that broke the german enigma code in WW2. Hell - that was a huge operation but was kept secret then and for 30 years after the war ended!!!

[LibLabUK]

34. Hmm

"You need to read about the british-american team that broke the german enigma code in WW2."

It was a wholly British team that crack Enigma, Shark and Lorenz, the Americans came over to Bletchley Park as observers towards the end of the war. The Polish did some of the seminal work in the 1930's on the predecessor to Enigma which aided Turing et al greatly in their early work.

[RH]

35. ......mmm

A friend of mine worked at Bletchley Park during the War.

Somewhere around 10 thousand worked on site but not so many would have had any useful knowledge of the progress on enigma, the most salient feature at the time being a serious shortage of manpower. A good deal of other issues were worked on, and most of it proceeded on a need to know basis, with a good helping of minds involved with small parts but only a few to glue it all together.

Ergo, not quite the same as the 9/11 scenario.

It is also worth noting that the records were destroyed soon afterwards, so how on Earth anybody would neverthelss assume to know the true numbers one can but wonder, if it was all so terribly secret.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

36. My grandmother worked on the Apollo capsule's electronics.

The workers weren't told how their work contributed to the whole. They were just told they were assembling circuit boards for a government project. I'm not disputing your argument, I'm just wondering how many of the 10,000 knew what they were really working on.

[LARED]

37. I think one needs to make a clear distinction

between expecting groups of people keeping a secret about a covert war effort,

verses


keeping a secret about a purposeful American government conspiracy that (in some peoples theory) killed 3000 plus Americans and drew us into war.

[MrSammo1]

38. They don't work

Even better.....try using one in a bathroom on the plane. No window! No radio signal gets out at all!

[MrSammo1]

39. They don't work!

Better yet....try using a cell phone in a bathroom on a plane. (where we were told that they were used) No window! The radio signal is effectively blocked!

[Must_B_Free]

11. I fly twice a week

I've heard someones cell ring inside the plane up in the air and he took the call.

[demodewd]

12. elevation

What was your elevation at the time?

[MercutioATC]

18. I'm BAAAACK! (from a vacation requiring a plane ride)

...and I (gasp!) left my cellphone on. Here's what happened:

Akron-Canton to Atlanta on AirTran 08/11/04. Alltel service. LG LX5450 phone. Flight time about 1 hour 20 minutes. Cruising altitude 35,000 feet.

After takeoff, service was at 1-2 bars for about 2 minutes, followed by no service for 1-2 minutes throughout the flight. I checked the phone 15-20 times during the flight, and the pattern repeated.

I didn't try to make a call, but I did have service at 35,000 feet.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

19. I am glad that you don't claim to be a scientist.

Your little experiment is slightly flawed in a number of ways.

1) You did not actually make any calls so how can you say that you had service.
2) Having 1-2 bars on your phone lit up does not necessarily mean that you can make a clear, uninterrupted call.
3) Is your current cellphone more than 3 years old? The people that 'made' calls from the planes on 9/11 didn't have the same technology at their disposal that we have today.


Miracles and Wonders

By Alan Cabal

MIRACLES AND WONDERS Last week, USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines' to allow passengers to make cellphone calls from aircraft in flight. According to the story, the satellite-based system employs a "Pico cell" to act as a small cellular tower.

"It worked great," gushed Monte Ford, American Airline's chief information officer. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear."

Before this new "Pico cell," it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph.

Yet despite this, passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick and Edward Felt all managed to place calls from Flight 93 on the morning of September 11. Peter Hanson, en route to Disneyland with his wife and daughter, phoned his dad from Flight 175. Madeline Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant, made a very dramatic call from Flight 11 as it sped to the North Tower. Barbara Olson made two calls, collect, to her husband at his government office from Flight 77 as it made its way to the Pentagon.

http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news%26columns/AlanCabal.cfm


P.S. I hope that you enjoyed your break from pushing tin.

[MercutioATC]

20. Like I said, it's hardly a comprehensive study...

Frankly, I was surprised I got a signal at 35,000 feet.

[Abe Linkman]

22. Oil Empire? Mercutio: Wassup with oilempire?

We're waiting for you to keep your word.

[MercutioATC]

23. Why don't you try reading my post, then, Abe? I posted it hours ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=16587&mesg_id=17064

Did you think to look in the thread where DD asked me about oilempire?

[TrogL]

25. New and old technology

The "new" technology in cell phones is digital. It has a limited range. Try this for yourself. Turn on your cell phone. If it's anyting like mine, you will get a "D" for digital. Now go someplace where the signal isn't so hot (eg. the parking garage at work). Pretty soon it switches to "A" for analog. That's the old technology.

When Sprint started their "hear a pin drop" advertising, that's what they were going on about. Analog is perfectly good for voice even if it does break up a bit. To hear a pin drop, you need digital.

The other issue in plane altitude. Everybody seems to have forgotten that the planes were NOT at cruise altitude, they were on approach for New York. Planes cannot go magically from 35,000 to 0.

Tell ya what. I'm gonna be on a trans-continental flight in the middle of September. I'll see if I can get permission to make a cell phone call over Winnipeg and see what cell phone conditions are like on the approach to Toronto. It'll be a worse-case-scenario because cell phone coverage isn't as heavy in that area as it would be in NY state.

[DulceDecorum]

21. Once again I have to shake my head.

MercutioATC says:
I didn't try to make a call, but I did have service at 35,000 feet.

Sigh.

You coulda been a contenda!

[impe]

24. Service Indeed....

and bet you were in the can too.

[greenman2]

26. 6-9dB loss in the bathroom

cell phones generally loose about 1/3 to 1/9 power when enclosed in a sealed room with no windows. Ed Felt was suposedly in the can, the westmorland 911 operator who recieved the call is now gagged by the FBI.

TrogL said...
The other issue in plane altitude. Everybody seems to have forgotten that the planes were NOT at cruise altitude, they were on approach for New York. Planes cannot go magically from 35,000 to 0

yea, thats part of the problem, the maps we were shown, do NOT show flight 93, or any other flight dcending in altitude. if the transpoders were off, they had to guess at the maps, bringing up a new can of worms, cause the map for flight 77 was incomplete cause the tx-code was off, but the maps for other flights are complete. flight 175 CHANGED its TX code TWICE. flight 93 also changed its tx- code.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between competing a call at 35,000ft and having service. to get service, or even for the phone to ring, it is a one-way page. for a call to be completed, the phone has to "handshake" with the cell site, at that speed and height, the phone would loose the original site, and try to handoff to another site, before the traffic chanell was ever setup. even if it did setup, the call wouldnt last more than a couple of seconds, the phone would see 100 sites, and start to try and handoff to a site, by the time it did, another site would be stronger, and it would drop the call.

tech aspects of cell calls from airliners...
http://physics911.org/net/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=1
experiments....
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6

back to the maps, the transcrips and the maps do not correlate, the maps seem to be made up on the spot

oilempire, is a bunch of bull, the guy thinks a 757 hit the pentagon, but has a page on remote control with little UAVs on it. then has no thesis on how remote may have happened, then cuts down anyone who does come up with an idea about it.

actually, if you think about it...
if you think no 757 hit the pentagon, or think flight 93 was not downed in Pa, then the FAA/controllers/ or someone is covering up the flight data.

if someone is covering up that data, then why is it so hard to believe in plane swapping????
same darn thing !

you want to solve 911 ?

then look at the maps (very carefully), find out where the altitude swings wildly, find out at what point and time the transponders were turned on and off, find out where the transcripts deviate from the maps.....
all a flight has to do is fly over another, change transpoder codes, the other craft, turns its code off, and you have a plane swap.

i bet that is what happened to 77, the boeing flew over, the F-16 (or war games plane, or whatever) put in a txcode for it....
swapped.

The Secret Hijacking -(Woody Box)
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=53

then read....
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight93.html
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=52
http://airgames.bravehost.com/

Brad

http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/

Stills of the Dulles hijacker video, can you spot the hijacker that is still alive?
http://hijack77.batcave.net/

[impe]

27. Hi Greenman2!

Great post. Yes, I'm curious why the FBI gagged the Westmoreland Operator! Perhaps some of their agents here
can explain.

Besides the skin of the plane being prohibitive to receiving signals, Mr. Felt's bathroom saga brought back
memories of the Bruce Willis movie where the reporter was calling from the can. We definitely did not have
the technology when the film was made and even in 2001 and this possibly conditioned the sheeple to accept the outrageous claim by our gov. that 8 calls were made
and went through that day.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[impe]

31. Hi Abe!

You are to be commended for holding your own here among all the disinformants of Truth.

The cell phone stories, box-cutter wielding terorists, melting steel, surviving paper passport, Koran/flying manual in the car, etc., their motto is the more audacious the "more" it will be believed by the masses. We can see that this is true in this Country. "Order out of Chaos"

[Abe Linkman]

32. "They" must know what H.L. Mencken had in mind, when he said:

"The public always prefers nonsense to sense."

Since it's not possible to know which ones are being paid and which are just foolishly obnoxious, we have to "hit back" at all their BS.

"Face miles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave and keep on thinking free."

Thanks.

[RH]

30. I'd heard

that the old analogue technology has a better range than the new digital stuff.

Is that not true?

[RH]

29. can you spot the hijacker that is still alive?

Does anybody here have a good photo of a hijacker still alive, as opposed to one taken before the event?

Never having met a hijacker still alive I'd be at a loss otherwise to spot one.

[MrSammo1]

40. Just for U

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

[RH]

42. ????????????????????????

According to the story on the linked to BBC page

"And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive."

So what then makes you think their photo of an Al-MIdhar is a photo of an Al-MIdhar still alive?

And on hijack77.batcave.net why does the provided link to that BBC page appear to purport that the link has something to do Al MIdhar "proven to be still alive, along with several other named 'hijackers'"?

"are suggestions that" is not "proven"

Are we supposed to take that sort of irresponsibly sloppy crap seriously?

What a complete waste of time!

:puke:

[MercutioATC]

33. Re: the "plane swap"

The problem with that theory is that there would be primary radar returns on the "new" plane up until it swapped and the "old" plane afterwards (unless they're making stealth 757/767s now). No primary targets were reported, even after reviewing the radar tapes.

Thus, no plane swap.

[Bhaisahab]

46. I'm a little puzzled.

In India, the pilot always demands passengers switch off cellphones and laptops during take off and landing coz apparently they "interfere" with the plane's electronics. You don't get that message in American planes?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Yes.

Do you think this matters to people who've just been hijacked and have no assurance that they will ever see their loved ones again?

[MrSammo1]

43. You are correct!

Radio waves and aluminum.....don't do togther well! If you're in a jets john at the time.....forget about it!

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2002/1015162213.Eg.r.html

[RH]

44. Radio waves?

:eyes:

That link deals with AM and FM radio frequencies, frequencies below 100 megahertz.

Analog phones use frequencies between 800 and 900 MHz; Modern digital phones use frequencies between 1850 and 1990 MHz.

That's microwave, not radio.

[MrSammo1]

45. Radio waves

And they still will be blocked!